[VoiceOfReason]

Yeah - I'd charge a restocking fee for that sh!t - no lie.

No kidding. It blows me away how many people think it is okay to get a lens or camera, try it out for a week or two, and send it back so it can no longer be sold as a new item, raising prices for the rest of us because the store takes a hit. If there was nothing wrong with the item I would have a no return policy.

[zzeitg]

No kidding. It blows me away how many people think it is okay to get a lens or camera, try it out for a week or two, and send it back so it can no longer be sold as a new item, raising prices for the rest of us because the store takes a hit. If there was nothing wrong with the item I would have a no return policy.

So then if the shop is bluffing, too, these are the same people which complain that they received a previously unpacked / used item. Damn it!

[ramseybuckeye]

If it was my choice I would go for the 20-40, I shoot more landscapes above 20mm than below. I think it's a much better range for street shooting, plus the smaller size is much less conspicuous. But it's not my choice, it's yours, good luck!

[Greinerstudio]

The 20-40 seems to be a vary polarizing lens. Some reviews seem to indicate it is barely better than a kit lens, others - it never leaves their camera. One thing is for certain, it has the 12-24 beat on size, weight, build and WR.

[rburgoss]

The 20-40 seems to be a vary polarizing lens. Some reviews seem to indicate it is barely better than a kit lens, others - it never leaves their camera. One thing is for certain, it has the 12-24 beat on size, weight, build and WR.

TBH, I really don't think one lens can substitute the other one. They are two different animals and serve different purposes. If your thing is the urban landscape, or interior and exterior architecture, then the 12-24 is your poison. But if you prefer the street candids, people gatherings, cozy environments and probably some family action, then the 20-40 cicutta is your remedy!

[Greinerstudio]

TBH, I really don't think one lens can substitute the other one. They are two different animals and serve different purposes. If your thing is the urban landscape, or interior and exterior architecture, then the 12-24 is your poison. But if you prefer the street candids, people gatherings, cozy environments and probably some family action, then the 20-40 cicutta is your remedy!

I shoot the occasional city scene (would like to do more), but really landscapes in nature has been my preference. I do not want to diminish the background with an UAW like my 8-16 which is always shot above 10, but I do want clarity in my images. The 12-24 seems to take amazing photos, but I do prefer the form factor and WR of the 20-40 (plus it may replace my 40 ltd as I have mentioned in the past) and the focal range may be sufficient. I know they are too very different animals as far as application, but are they equivalent in sharpness and other IQ?

[lesmore49]

I've got a 12-24. Thousands of exposures using it. Excellent lens. Rated as the best of the bunch for super wide angle lenses...a couple of years ago, by Popular Photography. I've seen some comments dismissing it and I wonder if the people dissing it....have actually used it.

[UncleVanya]

I've seen some comments dismissing it and I wonder if the people dissing it....have actually used it.

Like the 18-135 hate that gets tossed about often? I think you may be right. I haven't used this lens but it has a good reputation with people that I trust.

[lesmore49]

Like the 18-135 hate that gets tossed about often? I think you may be right. I haven't used this lens but it has a good reputation with people that I trust.

Exactly ! I hesitated about whether or not to buy the Pentax 18-135. There were a few really negative comments about it. Finally after some due consideration I bought an 18-135. I found it to be an excellent lens. Photographs are sharp, clear....I have absolutely no beefs. So much for listening to self appointed 'experts'...who in a number of cases don't have the equipment they are so ready to malign.

[jeverettfine]

I just bought an 18-135 and look forward to using it. I purchased it mainly to have a WR lens to go with my K-3 body. The photos posted in the 18-135 thread are impressive, especially the Finland training pix.
I have had the opportunity to try out a 20-40 and found it a delightful lens. Wonderful build quality that reminds me of the old Takumar lenses (has the same style of knurled ring for the zoom). Images seem quite nice, but I do have a FA 20-35 already.

[johnha]

I have the FA20-35/4 and that would probably be my choice with the FF in the pipeline (haven't used the others though). With many subjects (landscapes excepted perhaps?), Ultra-Wide angles produce horrendous perspective distortion that looks plain wrong to me. I went for the 10-17 FE instead as the Fisheye distortion looks more natural to me in cramped spaces (where I'd be using it most).

EDIT: My usual walkround lens if I'm just carrying the K-5 (I also shoot film), is the DA17-70/4 (although it is a bit bulky).

[lytrytyr]

I have the FA20-35/4 and that would probably be my choice with the FF in the pipeline

Based on MTF curves and the reports of critical users,
that lens does not perform very well at the edge of the full frame,
especially at the wider end.

[bpv_UW]

the reports of critical users,
.

Would you mind sharing?

[lytrytyr]

Would you mind sharing?

There was, for example, some recent discussion here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/236486-fa20...ml#post3168560